Briefs: I. 1. Title: International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (p. 46)
Judgment at trial in the Supreme Court of Washington for Washington State; Defendants appeal.

2. Facts: International Shoe Co. a corporation that manufactured footwear only in St. Louis, Missouri, yet it did sell its products nationwide. Including Washington State, where it send its salespeople. Who even though were not authorized to collect payments from the customers still were involved in renting spaces in hotels and businesses, display of sample products and taking orders. So when Washington State sought contributions to the state’s unemployment fund and did not get them, it sued International Shoe who argued that it was not engaged in business in the state.

3. Issue: Did International Shoe have sufficient minimum contacts in Washington State to permit jurisdiction there?

4. Rule: Yes. Minimum contacts with the forum state can enable a court in that state to exert personal jurisdiction over a party consistent with the Due Process clause.

5. Analysis: The activities carried on by International Shoe Co. in Washington were systematic and continuous rather than irregular or casual. The defendant received the benefits and protection of the laws of the state and is subject to jurisdiction there.

6. Conclusion: Judgment affirmed; the state may maintain the present suit to collect the tax.

II. 1. Title: Stinton v. Robin’s Wood, Inc. (p. 57)
Judgment at trial for Stinton; Defendants appeal.

2. Facts: Ethel Flanzraich, 78 years old, slipped and fell on the steps of property owned by Robin’s Wood. Flanzraich broke her left leg and left arm, so she sued Robin’s Wood alleging that her injuries were caused because of negligence of Anthony Monforte (Robin’s Wood employee) who painted the stairs. Even though the parties agreed to hold